CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03414.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03414.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03414.a1

Oct 28, 2015· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A defense contractor's security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant had numerous delinquent debts, including federal and state tax liens, which raised disqualifying conditions under F.1.

Despite the applicant's assertions of making payments and possessing high character, she failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to mitigate the financial concerns. Specifically, she did not demonstrate a responsible approach to her financial obligations or provide proof of debt resolution.

Consequently, the appeal board affirmed the denial of her security clearance, citing the lack of responsible action regarding her debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 5, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateOct 28, 2015

Cite For

Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Responsibility in Managing Debts and Financial Obligations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it consistent with the evidence and that the applicant had been properly informed of her obligations.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowErin C. Hogan — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were consistent with the record evidence and that the Applicant was adequately advised of her rights and obligations. The adverse decision was affirmed based on the substantial unresolved tax delinquencies and other debts.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: The Judge’s challenged findings are consistent with the record evidence. Applicant was adequately advised of her rights and obligations. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 14-03414.a1 DATE: 10/28/2015 DATE: October 28, 2015 In Re: ----------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03414

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August 5, 2014, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On August 17, 2015, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Erin C. Hogan denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant is employed by a Defense contractor. She has worked for this company since 2013. Applicant’s SOR lists numerous delinquent debts, the largest of which are liens for Federal and state taxes. In 2013, Applicant retained a debt relief organization to settle her debts. She terminated the relationship a little over a year later. There is no evidence concerning any debts that this organization may have resolved. In early 2014, Applicant retained a tax relief organization to help with her tax problems. A consultant filed Applicant’s taxes for the years under review but made mistakes, resulting in an audit and substantial tax bill. Applicant and her husband were in a repayment program, but they could not afford the monthly payments after her husband was laid off from his job. Applicant claims to be making payments to settle her debts. She contends that several of them are beyond the seven year reporting period for credit reports. She states that she is of high character and has never been in trouble with the law. Applicant is currently attempting to resolve her Federal tax debt on her own. However, her state and Federal tax problems are ongoing as of the close of the record. She stated that she had submitted an offer in compromise to the state but did not provide information as to whether it was accepted. In addition, one of the SOR debts was for a judgment entered against Applicant in late 2012. Applicant claims that she settled this debt, but she provided no corroboration. Applicant did not provide information about her and her husband’s current financial status, such as her husband’s total net monthly income, total monthly expenses, and total monthly debt payments. She provided no evidence about her duty performance, nor did she provide character references. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge cleared Applicant of most of the SOR allegations. However, she entered adverse findings for the state and Federal tax liens, a judgment in favor of a bank, and two collection accounts. She stated that Applicant had no plans for resolving her largest debts. She also stated that, although Applicant’s financial problems had been affected by circumstances outside her control, Applicant had not presented enough evidence to permit a conclusion that she had acted responsibly in regard to her debts. She also found that Applicant had taken little action to resolve her tax debts after terminating the contract with the tax relief firm. In the whole-person analysis, the Judge stated that Applicant apparently lacks a plan for addressing her largest debts and provided no evidence of her budget and income.

DISCUSSION

Applicant has challenged some of the Judge’s findings of fact. In doing so, she presents matters from outside the record, some of which post-date the Judge’s decision. We cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ E3.1.29. See also ISCR Case No. 14-03062 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 11, 2015). The Judge’s decision was based upon Applicant’s substantial, unresolved tax delinquencies and on three other debts, one of which was a judgment that the record shows was owed to a bank. Although Applicant claimed to have settled this debt, her documentation appeared to refer to the settlement of a debt to a different bank. The Judge’s finding that Applicant did not corroborate her claim to have settled the judgment is consistent with the record that was before her. We have considered the totality of Applicant’s challenges to the Judge’s findings. Viewed in light of the record as a whole, the Judge’s material findings are based upon “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. See ISCR Case No. 14-04226 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015). Applicant notes the Judge’s finding that she did not provide character or job performance references or current financial information. She states that she was not aware that this was necessary. However, Applicant received notice of her right and obligation to provide a documentary response to the File of Relevant Material (FORM). She received this notice in the Department Counsel memo1 as well as in the DOHA cover letter,2 both of which accompanied the FORM. She also received a copy of the Directive, which explains her rights as well. Although the notice that Applicant received did not mention explicitly the particular types of evidence she could submit, it was sufficient apprise her of her responsibilities. Applicant was not denied the due process provided by the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2015) (“Although character references and performance evaluations were not explicitly mentioned, the guidance that Applicant received was sufficient to place a reasonable person on notice of the general extent of his right to present evidence.”) Applicant cites to evidence that was favorable to her. However, her argument is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-08412 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 11, 2015). Neither is it sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-05251 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 5, 2015). The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board

FOOTNOTES

1 “[Y]ou . . . have 30 days from the receipt of this information in which to submit a documentary response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate.” FORM, dated April 23, 2015.

2 “[Y]ou have an opportunity to review the attached copy of [the FORM] and submit any material you wish the Administrative Judge to consider or to make any objections you may have as to the information in the file. You have 30 days from receipt of this letter to submit your objections or any additional information you wish to be considered.” DOHA Cover Letter, dated May 29, 2015.